This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] systemtap/tapsets.cxx: Fix dwarfless probes on multiple static functions
- From: Hemant Kumar <hemant at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- Cc: systemtap at sourceware dot org, naveen dot n dot rao at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, ulrich dot weigand at de dot ibm dot com, uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org, anton at samba dot org, fche at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:05:54 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] systemtap/tapsets.cxx: Fix dwarfless probes on multiple static functions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1429525764-23471-1-git-send-email-hemant at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1429710017 dot 1938 dot 71 dot camel at bordewijk dot wildebeest dot org>
On 04/22/2015 07:10 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 15:59 +0530, Hemant Kumar wrote:
With multiple static functions with same names in an ELF and in absence
of dwarf, if we probe on one of the functions, then systemtap places
probe only on one static function ignoring the rest. This is because the
mapping between the symbol names and their func_info is a simple map
which doesn't allow insertion of another symbol with the same name.
This patch fixes this issue by changing this map to a multimap which
allows duplicate entries for the same symbol name. lookup_symbol code
will return a set of func_info * instead of a single descriptor for a
We also need to fix other areas in the code where lookup_symbol() and
lookup_symbol_address() are being called so as to look for a set of
func_info's and a list of Dwarf_Addr's respectively, instead of a single
Looks good. I pushed this with one tiny change:
@@ -8242,6 +8242,8 @@ symbol_table::purge_syscall_stubs()
if (!addrs || addrs->empty())
/* Highly unlikely that multiple symbols named "sys_ni_syscall" may exist */
+ if (addrs->size() > 1)
+ cerr << _("Multiple 'sys_ni_syscall' symbols found.");
Dwarf_Addr stub_addr = addrs->front();
Just so that if this highly unlikely scenario does occur we get a
warning something is fishy.
Right! looks good.